Batemon v. Pine Bluff Police Department et al
ORDER that Defts' 6 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, dismissing the complaint as time-barred; judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 4/12/10. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BILLY BATEMON Plaintiff V. DAVID VILCHES, personally and in his official capacity as Detective of Pine Bluff Police Department, and SHARON REED, personally and in her official capacity as Detective of Pine Bluff Police Department Defendants
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NO: 5:10CV00053 SWW
ORDER Plaintiff Billy Batemon, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pine Bluff police detectives David Vilches and Sharon Reed. Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss (docket entries #6, #7) and Batemon's response in opposition (docket entry #12). After careful consideration, and for reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss will be granted, and the case will be dismissed as time-barred. In his amended complaint, Batemon alleges that on September 21, 2005, Defendants performed an illegal search of a residence in which he was present. Batemon charges that Defendants conducted the search pursuant to an invalid warrant, thus violating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches. Defendants assert that Batemon's claims are time-barred and must be dismissed. The forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions serves as the statute of limitations
for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. In Arkansas, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is three years. See Morton v. City of Little Rock, 934 F.2d 180, 182 (8th Cir. 1991). Here, Batemon sues Defendants for alleged unconstitutional search that occurred on September 15, 2005, and he commenced this action March 1, 2010well beyond the limitations period. The face of Batemon's amended complaint shows that his claims are time-barred, and he provides no basis for tolling the statute of limitations. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (docket entry #6) is GRANTED. Pursuant to the judgment entered together with this order, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010. /s/Susan Webber Wright UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?